A positive,
though obscure and academic
and also too multi-syllabic
way to say “non-violent communication”
which is rather like saying “non-oxymoronic”
because we are left wondering more precisely
what these terms could less aggressively not include,
is “enthymematic communication.”

Hi.
We don’t have a lot of time,
or, well, I guess you do,
but I don’t,
so let’s plunge right into the first big question:
Which came first, form or function?

False dichotomy. No such thing as a totally dysfunctional form,
and no such thing as changing function without some form
distinguished against a static background, or understory.

OK, that was quick!

Not really,
it just seems that way to you.

Whatever,
what about space and time,
which came first?

Same question.
Same answer.
Space adds formed place
to time’s potentiating and exforming function.

Alright,
so linguistic paradox meets coincidental evolution,
I guess.

About time.

So you say.
And, yang and yin?

Same question.
Yang empowers Time’s form
while Yin unfolds as bilateral yin-yin bipolarity,
bicamerality,
binary,
all binomial time frequencies,
synergetic trend strings and cycles,
bi-elliptical mutually irradiant,
revolving gravity waves;
double-binding,
like not-not injunctions
and mutual mentors of coredemptive natural intelligence
as accessible as the nearest regenerating cell,
intuition,
subconscious non-languaged awareness
of synergetic communication and community,
emerging from an eternally unfolding
enthymematic diastolic holding place
of polycultural multisystemic love,
being,
giveness,
fore-giveness,
mutual subsidiary solidarity
and coredemptive navigation from past stimuli,
pulling, inviting, seducing
toward future’s ecojust karmic response,
ecological reconnection from past to future in each present time,
re-genesis of The Tree of Coincidental Death and Life,
fear of shortness of time’s revelation, revolution,
between death and life
and yet further death and purgation
toward further freedom and facility and harmonic diversity
of both species and song,
until we sometimes overheat our climatic landscapes
with less than fully optimized permacultural function.

Wow!
Was that good for you?
I don’t know how many nested climaxes you intended to create there,
but, anyway,
what about dark and light,
black and white,
dispossession and possession of transparency?

Same question.
Black is white light’s full octaved closed-set form
as light is emergent black’s informating octave-ergodic function.

So is that like a color wheel observation
or some kind of cosmologically universal statement?

Yes.
The ultra-violet spectrum completes time’s full octave frequencies,
your human natured atomic picture frame
of a double-torus shaping universe,
the outline of a tree
including the tree’s equivalent subterranean understory,
and undervalued root system.
Undervalued by egocentric left-brain dominant culture,
not by right-left bicameral balancers
and hormonizers
and permaculturalists,
all the way back to Laotse
then on back to shamans noticing naturally seasoned
cycling and recycling systems of birth and decomposition
and then new birth again.

You did it again,
that thing
when you sound like you’re channeling Bucky Fuller
and you start talking about one thing
and then pulling words about some other irrelevant thing,
turning analogical coincidence
into ecological correlates.

I’ll take a pass on ever pretending
connections between DNA’s structure
language syntax.
How about the chicken and egg?
Which came first?

What’s the difference?

I don’t know.
It’s one of those questions philosophers like to ask.

No.
I mean, what’s the difference between a chicken
and its egg?

Well, one has feathers and wings
and sometimes lays an egg
and the other is sort of oval
and smooth hard-shelled,
and gooey inside.

This chicken you are asking about,
did it lay the egg
you are asking about,
or
did this chicken emerge from the egg
you are asking about?
Or, maybe both,
at different stages of chicken with egg development?
If so,
then I guess they too evolved coincidentally.
If I may comment off record here,
you keep asking questions about evolutionary production
and consumption cycles,
as if progenitive decomposition,
metamorphic transitions,
through self-renewing stages of paradox
were not the reverse face of regeneration,
as if we could have mature plants
during summer’s contenting heat
without cold hibernation
of winter’s dissonant contentiousness,
or any concept of fully living
without something we fear as death,
loss of corporate-structured life.

I told you I would only do this interview
if you promised to not critique
our stupid questions.

There is no such thing,
but some are much more perennially
and permaculturally productive than others.

If you say so.
What would be the most insightful question I coul ask you
and please go ahead and answer it too.
Save me some trouble.

Why is the duration of your DNA’s life potential
measured only with atomic
digital
cellular-universal ego-rooted quantitative values?
Because positive inductive/consumptive life-form balance
is omnisciently defined by eco-ionic production
of (0) sum binomial root systemic double-crossing
Eulerian prime relationship spacetime function.
The beginning and end of your DNA string
appear terminal rather than transitional
if you identify your self as ego,
rather than your holonic portion of eco-regenerative consciousness.

OK, well, thank you for that,
I think.
how do you feel about this interview so far?
Anything else I should ask?

I wish you would give higher priority
to ecological and feminist justice platforms.

What’s the difference
between a feminist agenda
and an ecological platform?

You stand in solidarity with one
while endlessly reiterating the other.

Nice job;
very excellent question.
Which came first
is like asking which is the Host
and which is the benign parasite,
which is the producer and which is the grateful consumer,
when these functions emerge coincidentally
throughout a life,
a dream,
a generation,
but also sequentially
across time’s procreation of regenerating space.

You’re doing it again.

Yes and notnot. That’s what I do, reiterative time flows ubiquitously double-bound.

As I approached David Bohm’s Wholeness and the Implicate Order I anticipated easy resonance with his philosophy, but was concerned I would be lost in his symbolic math. I had no idea that he had any interest in language or anything that might approach a meta-philosophy of linguistics.

I probably don’t understand enough of this to even successfully explain why it feels so compelling to me, much less why I hope it will be compelling to you. Even so, let me set the stage for his rheomode chapter with a few sentences that grabbed me.

…in the present inquiry the rheomode will be concerned mainly with questions having to do with the broad and deep implications of our overall world views which now tend to be raised largely in the study of philosophy, psychology, art, science and mathematics, but especially in the study of thought and language themselves…. …the dominant form of subject-verb-object tends continually to lead to fragmentation, and it is evident that the attempt to avoid this fragmentation by skillful use of other features of the language can work only in a limited way, for, by force of habit, we tend sooner or later, especially in broad questions concerning our overall world views, to fall unwittingly into the fragmentary mode of functioning implied by the basic structure. The reason for this is not only that the subject-verb-object form of the language is continually implying an inappropriate division between things but even more, that the ordinary mode of language tends very strongly to take its own function for granted,… …because the ordinary mode of thought and language does not properly call attention to its own function, this latter seems to arise in a reality independent of thought and language so that the divisions implied in the language structure are then projected, as if they were fragments, corresponding to actual breaks in ‘what is’. (pp 39-40)

Bohm chooses rheo because it means “flow”; so he sees rheomode language structure as flowmodal. For reasons that I hope to support as we go along, I believe Bohm’s rheomode may translate effectively as “ecological.”

My first question has to do with how universally true is this “subject-verb-object” fragmentation of language. Here Bohm speaks of its ubiquitous culturally fragmenting effect especially when discussing things that are Whole Systemic like universal principles and nature and spirituality, dogma and metaphysics. But is it true that nouns always act as static nomials and verbs take all the dynamic action in all languages, is there a linguistic cultural divide in this respect between more Eastern enculturated language, as compared to Western encultured language? Is this as true in aboriginal, unwritten languages, as of post-industrial evolving language? Are there possibly ethological linguistic trends that might distinguish between Northern and Southern hemispheres, germane to this tripartite distinction between progenitive/subject-generative/verb-regeneration/object linguistic functions?

Regardless, Bohm’s ecological rheomode concentrates full language attention on holistic implications of verbs, language as iconic of process, change, development as well as implicating stasis, solidarity, and unraveling. Verbs, verbals, have this binomial function, dialectical form of explicit thesis-function and implied antithesis-appositive dysfunction. Dynamic linguistic function is diametric, binomial analogically and, therefore, binary-balanced digitally. Perhaps analogical information is to binary-coded polynomial information as digital information is to bionically-encoded language-pattern.

Just as it is not possible to have a “true” information system that is not binary-balanced, it is not true information that is not binomially structured, with a positive polynomial +form-function that is negatively dipolar correlated with –(-) polynomial equivalently ionic disbalancing chaotic dissonance; an implicit intuited antithesis completing the 100% truth value of each language space-time event. Cognitive awareness, and therefore the development of expressive language, and word choice, is an enthymematic dialogue between right brain’s natural systemic design and development experience, and left brain’s eisegetical hypothesis that what ego’s senses are absorbing remains normatively confluent with our prior unfolding of time encultured memory network.

For now, I want to narrow Bohm’s 7-stage (open-ended octave) taxonomy of nomials into what appear to me to be the more primal 4-base stages. He analyzes several words as rheomodes. We will use his analytical structure for additional words:

Reformant [reforming, reform-ionic]—is formant in this now, so choice of form is functionally “Truing”

Irreformant [negative reform-ionic]—is not formed now, so choice of form is functionally “Falsing”

When I replace reform with inform, then it becomes easier for me to see not-informant as dissonance, noise, the reception of a message without nutriently redeeming value; lack of confluence, absence of a good as well as absence of truth at this time.

Generate

Regenerate—to conceive again

Regenerant—regenerating now, truing confluent with encoded experience

Irregenerant—negative degenerating-ionic, generative trend is falsing, out of formative and functional potentiating balance.

For me, although apparently not for Bohm himself, the logic implied within these fractal forms becomes more transparent if I use co or eco where Bohm uses re and rheo; these are essentially binomially-fractal flow rhythms and patterns of logic and ecologic.

I realize these thoughts have taken some bold analogical leaps, but I believe that if we embrace the basic prime fractal relationship between Interior Landscape’s right-brain dominant ecologic as a reverse corollary of the Exterior Landscape’s left-brain dominant logic, we can uncover empirical, scientific, deductively sequential, logical, rational, as well as good and beautiful and regenetically effective evidence that cognitive dissonance is what happens when co-incidention does not. In other words, we can only cognize as true and logical, right and fair and just, beautiful and good, graced karma what does not cause chaotic temporal-neural flow chaos between our right and left dominant co-incidental pattern and rhythm code memory, within our amazingly binomial information processing DNA speciated brains.

Both psychological and physical/geometric/biometric evidence combine as I comparatively analyze Buckminster Fuller’s Synergetics, Julian Jaynes’ ethological cultural analysis of the left-brain’s evolution of language (The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of theBicameral Mind). Jaynes’ conjectures have only been further supported by subsequent split-brain research. However, his choice of “breakdown” was important for his historical interest in the evolutionary relationship between consciousness and identity, and, if he were rewriting for a post-millennial audience, he would probably invest rather more ink in our bicameral buildup of right-left equi-valent permacultural balancing trends. That said, his historical evolutionary analysis remains germane for noticing this fractal flow-trend within language and ecological economies of natural systemic value, virtue, nutrition, medicine, health, mental health, power, function, form, information, and ionic/bionic ergetic frequencies.

I find natural (inclusive of human natural) fractals as deeply embedded in our Interior Landscape as Buckminster Fuller, Gregory Bateson, Guy Murchie, and others find within Earth’s, even the Universe’s, natural design and development stages and frequencies and forms. So much so that analogical fractals and polymorphic fractals resolve as ecological and logical regenerative Prime Relationship Fractal Systems.

Some more developmental-fractal eco-nomials that I have included in an article for the Community Development Association:

Comparing synergetic organic paradigms, the unfolding economy of love (Fuller mentioned love as a synonym for how he understood the action of synergy) and seasoned integrity, perhaps wisdom, becomes analogous with Fuller’s fractal unfolding of Universal Intelligence.

Regenerative systemic process follows a redemptive economic cycle, in which we intend to “buy back,” reinvest in those outcomes with the best sustained yield-value and least risk of over-unbalancing-investment. Risk aversion itself seems to recommend becoming as cooperatively self-invested as environmental circumstances allow, as a first-tier priority for OCQI yield development. Self-redemptive economies lead to mutually-(co)redemptive economies, lead to self-regenerating Climax Community development, into perpetuity, or permaculturally.

I suspect there may be profound implications for merging linguistic and nutritional health paradigms. For example, I am aware of two psychotherapeutic models rooted in Buddhist philosophy: dialectical behavior and compassionate. They each have their strengths and they are not in any way dissonant with each other. Their primary distinction may be their point of original linguistic perspective. Dialectical behavior therapy comprehends self-identity within a fundamentally Thesis v Antithesis logos/language intellectual and feeling environment. Here we are encouraged to balance our grasping instincts with our immune-aversive instincts. Compassion therapy begins with a Basic Attendance Self-EcoEnvironmentally co-passionate mutual mentoring enthymematic hypothesis, which implies an equivalent +/(-) binomial Thesis/Antithesis Zen Vortex of mindful potential. Compassionate awareness, or love, or synergy, becomes the synergetic holonic balancing of +Thesis-ego-identity with –(-)Antithesis-bionic economical individuation. Mutually appreciated therapeutic benefits now, and anticipated for the future, is what sustains healthy interdependent minds, communication, relationships, intentional communities.

Switching to a Taoist frame, where I have more familiarity and linguistic comfort, this Positive Teleological self-identity information string, following the regenerative evolutionary and revolutionary trends of enculturing history, is the convex force/form-power/solidarity of Yang; regeneratively completed and dialectically-binomially-economically cooperatively and mutually balanced by concave flow/function-dipolar reflective subsidiarity of co-incidentally reverse proportioning/distortioning/torquing/wavilinear/individuation unraveling Yin’s bi-functional role within Yang-quantic, or ionic, identity. Regenerative Tao balancing trends may be temporally viewed as Yin-prescient to Yang’s linguistic self-consciousness moment, as well as coincidentally wavilinear within each regenerative trending primal event-moment relationship.

Perhaps because I read Laura Brown’s feminist psychotherapy work (Subversive Dialogues) before I ran into Compassion Therapy, and something going viral that I think is called Health Home, I have trouble seeing any difference in how they describe an optimally therapeutic linguistic, or rhetorical, or dialectic/dialogical multisystemic environment. When I began my current journey toward verbally and sometimes nonverbally silencing my aversion to what I don’t find compelling in my Oppositionally Disordered daughter, and, instead actively looking for ways to appreciate her Positive functionality, reinforcing and growing her strengths and assets, assuming her screechy-scratchy dissonance has a positive-functional ethological evolutionary role for her, and for our relationship, then I find myself enjoying her more, and she appears to enjoy me more.

Anyway, I have certainly not done justice to the linguistic potential you might find in David Bohm’s rheomode, whether it works as a synonym for ecological flow function for you or not. Unfortunately, like Buckminster Fuller, he was an even worse writer than am I. It is easy to get lost in our long, complex strings of interactively dynamic analogies. This, however, is an unfortunate communication challenge for those with a polypathic way of using our nutrient-absorbing sensory receptors. Something I intuit that we might share, or you would not still be reading this.

[1]All systems are subject to comprehension, and their mathematical integrity…and trigonometric interfunctioning can be coped with by systematic [eco]logic. (Fuller, 1975, p. 97) The fourness of self and the fourness of otherness = [binomial and bionic] comprehension. (Fuller, 1979, p. 49)